Judicial custody bars tax requisition under section 132A; revenue must seek release through the criminal court, not override its order.

Property seized by police and deposited in the treasury under a criminal court's order remained in judicial custody, so the revenue could not invoke section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to requisition it by directing the treasury officer. The provision did not permit an executive override of the court's control or release of property in derogation of judicial orders. The proper course was to seek release before the criminal court having custody. The requisition and consequential directions were therefore invalid and quashed, and the writ petition succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner or the Director of Inspection could, under section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requisition case property lying in the custody of a treasury officer pursuant to an order of a criminal court.

Analysis: The property had been seized by the police, produced before the criminal court, and deposited in the treasury under the court's order for safe custody. Custody in law remained with the court, and the treasury officer could not release the property except under the court's permission. Section 132A, as framed, did not authorise a requisition directed to a court or to property held under judicial custody, and the expression used in the provision did not support an executive override of a judicial order. The proper course was to approach the criminal court and seek release of the property through judicial process, not to issue directions in conflict with the court's order.

Conclusion: The requisition and consequential directions issued to the treasury officer were invalid and were quashed. The writ petition was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Property in the custody of a criminal court cannot be requisitioned under section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by bypassing the court's control or in derogation of its orders; the revenue must seek release through the judicial forum having custody of the property.

---